Legalization Of Marijuana
The Ruiner Responds to J. David Nick in the
Marijuana News & Discussion forums; PROP. 19 IS THE BEST THING TO HAPPEN TO MMJ PATIENTS SINCE PROP. 215
Really ? Tell me more….I thought ...
The Ruiner Responds to J. David Nick
PROP. 19 IS THE BEST THING TO HAPPEN TO MMJ PATIENTS SINCE PROP. 215
Really? Tell me more….I thought it was people vs. Kelly, but hey, YOU ARE A LAWYER.
Anyone who claims that Proposition 19 will restrict or eliminate rights under the Compassionate Use Act (CUA) or the Medical marijuana Program (MMP) is simply wrong. If anything, Proposition 19 will permit individuals to grow and possess much more than ever before with patients, coops and collectives still receiving the same protections they are entitled to under the CUA and MMP.
Wow this is awesome….
Here is why.
The legal arguments claiming the "sky will fall" if Prop. 19 passes are based on the fallacious conclusion that the Initiative invalidates the CUA and MMP. This baseless fear stems from a flawed legal analysis which focuses on just about every portion of Prop. 19 EXCEPT the relevant portions. This flawed legal analysis is driven by an incorrect understanding of the rules of statutory construction.
Do you mean :[I] As the Supreme Court has explained: "n interpreting a statute a court should always turn to one cardinal canon before all others. . . .[C]ourts must presume that a legislature says in a statute what it means and means in a statute what it says there” Okay, I get it! The bill has to mean what it says…at least that’s the interpretation by the supreme court.
Although extrinsic materials (such as legislative committee memos or voter pamphlet arguments) may not be resorted to when the legislative language is clear, courts may never ignore the purpose of the legislation. Every interpretation a court gives a statute must be consistent with the purpose of the legislation. This is why statutes have long "preambles" which explicitly state the purposes of the legislation.
Does this mean that all of the pamphlets and letters (like this one) that intend to “explain” 19 are inadmissible and don’t mean anything to the state or prop 19? So the courts are going to focus on the preamble which mostly discusses revenue, jobs creation, and overall taxation and regulation of cannabis?
This rule is so controlling that a court is required to ignore the literal language of a legislative statute if it conflicts with the purpose of the legislation. By example I call attention to the appellate court case of Bell v. DMV. In this precedent setting case, the court ruled that a statute must be interpreted to apply to civil proceedings even though the statute they were interpreting stated it applied only to "criminal" proceedings. The court’s interpretation of the statute was consistent with the purposes of the legislation and the limitation to criminal cases in the statute itself was not.
That’s not what the supreme court says…are you lying to me? Or is the supreme court?
PROP. 19 PROVIDES ADDITIONAL PROTECTIONS TO PATIENTS FROM THE ACTIONS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT
Section 2B presents the controlling and relevant purposes for understanding what Prop. 19 can and cannot do. This section EXPRESSLY excludes the reach of Prop. 19 from the CUA and MMP. Sections 2B (7 & specifically state that the purpose of this initiative is to give municipalities total and complete control over the commercial sales of marijuana "EXCEPT as permitted under Health and Safety Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9.”
I see “bought and sold” and “possess and consume.” What about cultivation and taxation? Those don’t appear to be exempt.
Prop. 19 makes it perfectly clear that the Initiative does NOT give municipalities any control over how medical marijuana patients obtain their medicine or how much they can possess and cultivate as the purpose of the legislation was to exempt the CUA and the MMP from local government reach. Whatever control municipalities have over patients and collectives is limited by the CUA and the MMP, not by Prop. 19.
Well that’s good considering you take the position that 19 won’t affect MMJ laws. It really shouldn’t interfere, right?
To further reduce everyone’s understandable anxiety over allowing municipalities to unduly control collectives, I direct everyone’s attention to the last statute of the MMP, 11362.83, which reads. “Nothing in this article shall prevent a city or other local governing body from adopting and enforcing laws CONSISTENT with this article.”
But 19 isn’t the MMP…no one has anxiety about the MMP. Why are you quoting the MMP? You wouldn’t be trying to confuse the voters now, would you?
Since collectives are expressly allowed, local ordinances banning them are not consistent with the MMP. Health and Safety Code Section 11362.83, which limits municipalities ability to ban coops or overly restrict them, is unaffected by Prop. 19 as it expressly states in Sections 2B (7 & that the laws created by Prop. 19 must be followed "EXCEPT as permitted under Health and Safety Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9.”
Yes, for: possession, consumption, and sales.
What about cultivation and taxes? Also, I would just like to point out that 19 neglects to mention 11362.5 in Section 2B (2)…that states which standing CA laws are to be unaffected by prop 19. If there were to be no interference then why not list the CUA and MMP right there in the exemptions?
PROP. 19 PROTECTS PATIENTS PERSONAL AND COLLECTIVE CULTIVATIONS
Further protecting patients from local law enforcement actions, Section 11303 states that ”no state or local law enforcement agency or official shall attempt to, threaten to, or in fact SEIZE or destroy any cannabis plant, cannabis seeds or cannabis that is LAWFULLY CULTIVATED.” If you are a patient, you may “lawfully cultivate” as much marijuana as medically necessary and Prop. 19 protects that right. If you are cultivating for a collective, you may “lawfully cultivate” as much marijuana as your collective allows you to and Prop. 19 protects that right. Unfortunately, many law enforcement officials refuse to recognize the rights provided under the MMP for collectives to “lawfully cultivate” and sell marijuana. Prop. 19 reinforces those rights and makes it even more difficult for law enforcement to bust a collective or collective grower.
Please explain what “lawfully cultivated” means under prop 19. Because I know what it means under the CUA and MMP… if 19 doesn’t affect these statutes why do I need a new definition?
IT WILL KEEP POLICE FROM COOPERATING WITH THE FEDS
As you can see from the above paragraph, the statutory scheme Prop. 19 creates expressly forbids law enforcement from seizing lawfully cultivated cannabis.
Well, I still don’t even know what “lawfully cultivated “ means….
Prop. 19 will create an insurmountable barrier for local law enforcement which is still bent on depriving you of your rights through the despicable device of using federal law enforcement officers.
Federal drug enforcement is nearly 100 percent dependent on the ability to use local law enforcement. They do not have the manpower to operate without it. Prop. 19 in no uncertain terms tells local law enforcement that they cannot even “attempt to” seize cannabis. If Prop. 19 passes, California will actually have a law on the books that expressly forbids local police from cooperating with the feds in the seizure of any “lawfully cultivated” California cannabis.
Nearly 100%? Wow, where did you source that from? Either way, it is still federally- illegal, so if by the off chance that DEA raids peoples’ grows it just means that the state cant/wont protect them? That local law enforcement simply wont be involved? I mean, isn’t the key word here “cooperating?”
PROP. 19 DOES NOT LIMIT PATIENTS RIGHTS UNDER THE CUA & MMP
The nail in the coffin for those arguing against Prop. 19 is found in Section 2C (1). This is the only section which discusses which other laws the acts is "intended to limit" and nowhere in this section is the CUA or the MMP listed. If the purpose of Prop. 19 was "to limit" the application and enforcement of the CUA and MMP, those laws would have been listed along with all the other laws that are listed in Section 2C (1). Since the CUA and MMP were not listed, then Prop. 19 does not "limit" the CUA and MMP.
Oh now you mention that section! What about section 2C (2)? The “exemptions” portion…If, by using your logic, 19 is not being used to ”limit” the CUA/MMP, it is not going to protect the CUA/MMP either. It may not “limit” CUA/MMP, but neither does it “protect” or “exempt” them from 19.
It’s that simple.
PROP. 19 MAKES IT EASIER FOR PATIENTS TO OBTAIN THEIR MEDICINE
Section 2B (6) states that one of the purposes of Prop. 19 is to “Provide easier, safer access for patients who need cannabis for medical purposes.” This section is one of the many reasons Prop. 19 is very good for patients. If Prop. 19 passes, the days of having to go through the hassle of getting a doctor’s recommendation to treat simple medical conditions will be coming to an end in those communities which allow Prop. 19 “stores" to exist. When you need an aspirin you do not have to go to a doctor and then to the health department and then to Walgreens - YOU JUST GO TO WALGREENS (the founder of which, Mr. Walgreen, became rich during prohibition by selling "medical" alcohol to patients who had obtained a prescription for alcohol from their doctor).
I have a doctors recommendation, it wasn’t inconvenient at all, and I feel safe when going to get my meds. And if I need an asprin why would I have to go to a doctor anyway? Asprin isn’t a schedule 1 narcotic now is it? It has been an over-the-counter medicine for decades, how can you compare cannabis to asprin? Is Mr. Walgreen related to Dick Lee? Where is this paragraph going?
In those communities which are stubborn and will not allow Prop 19 "stores," patients will still have the protections of the CUA and MMP and the statutory right to form coops and collectives. Prop. 19 specifically recognizes that these rights are not invalidated and does nothing to limit the ability of patients to cultivate or form collectives or coops.
Where does prop 19 “specifically recognize” these rights? Because I don’t see that ANYWHERE in the text of prop 19. Show me, in the bill, where it recognizes coops & collectives? Is that because those words aren’t even found in the text of prop 19? That’s not very “specific” is it?
PROP. 19 ALLOWS YOU TO HAVE A LOT OF marijuana
As an attorney called upon to defend patients and non-patients in marijuana cases, I cannot tell you how beneficial and how much freedom Section 11300 subdivision A (3) of Prop.19 will be to cannabis users. Read it!
I really don’t like what it says, because I still don’t know what “lawfully cultivated” under prop 19 means…and you haven’t explained to me yet….
Section 11300: Personal Regulation and Controls
(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, it is lawful and shall not be a public offense under California law for any person 21 years of age or older to:
(i) Personally possess, process, share, or transport not more than one ounce of cannabis, solely for that individual’s personal consumption, and not for sale.
(iii) Possess on the premises where grown the living and harvested plants and results of ANY harvest and processing of plants lawfully cultivated pursuant to section 11300(a)(ii), for personal consumption.
Aren’t you basing this entire letter as a response to MMJ patients that are afraid of 19? So you are saying that prop 19 allows me to keep my weed at my house? Well, I already get to keep it. That’s why I have a doctors recommendation. But it has to be” lawfully cultivated pursuant to section 11300(a)(ii)?” What does section 11300 (a)(ii) say? And why now does it have to be “lawfully cultivated pursuant to section 11300(a)(ii)?” What about my rights as a patient? Aren’t you starting to blur the lines a little bit here? Mixing the general 21 and over crowd with MMJ patients?
Section (i) limits possession to one ounce OUT OF YOUR HOUSE. Section (iii) permits people 21 and over to have within their residence or single parcel ALL the cannabis which one grew in their 25 sq. foot parcel, including what you grew this year, what you grew last year and EVERY SINGLE 25 SQ. FT. HARVEST YOU EVER HAD ON THAT SINGLE PARCEL. This covers as many cycles of indoor and/or outdoor grown cannabis as a person can produce as long as each grow was no more than 25 square feet and done in succession.
But I thought I was exempt from this nonsense? Didn’t you say that the CUA/MMP are exempt? You stopped saying that when you starting talking about cultivation…why? Now you are putting restraints on the size of my garden through prop 19? I don’t see you saying here that I and other MMJ patients are exempt…and I don’t see it in prop 19 either.
Clearly section 11300(a) (i) limits personal possession and consumption to one ounce OUT OF YOUR HOME while section11300(a) (iii) is what you are allowed to have AT YOUR RESIDENCE if that is where your 25 sq. ft. garden is located. That this is the case is established by another rule of statutory construction, i.e. the specific controls the general. Here (iii) is the specific statute with respect to what you can have AT YOUR RESIDENCE ONLY or in the words of subdivision (iii) "on the premises where grown".
Great, so I can have all the weed I want – just as long as I have grown it at my residence. Thanks for the generosity…but what if my space is larger than 25 sq ft? Doesn’t prop 19 then make my NOW legal garden ILLEGAL? Where are the exemptions for the MMJ patient growers?
The one ounce limitation only applies when you leave your house, not wherever it is you grow your 25 foot plot. I can picture being able to easily defend a person with 200 pounds who is not even medical.
And 200 lbs grown from a 5x5 space would take approximately 75.66 years to cultivate with a 1gram/1watt exchange for four, three- month cycles per year.. So, you are saying that you can picture yourself defending someone into your centarian years? Admirable.
Under Prop. 19 you can only travel with one ounce, but if you are a patient you can still enjoy the protections of the CUA and MMP and can safely travel with eight ounces, or whatever your doctor permits you to have or the needs of your collective, as allowed by the CUA and the MMP. YOUR SUPPLY PROBLEMS CAUSED BY PARANOID CULTIVATION LAWS AND POLICIES THAT AT TIMES LIMIT YOUR PERSONAL CULTIVATION PROJECTS ARE SOLVED BY PROP. 19.
What “supply problems?” Which state do you live in? The only laws regarding personal limiting of cultivation are seen in prop 19. Why aren’t you even referencing the People vs. Kelly decision? There are no limits, so in this case 19 is unnecessary.
Prop. 19 creates a marijuana sanctuary IN YOUR HOME ONLY. Prop. 19 allows you to have AT YOUR HOME ONLY ALL OF THE PROCEEDS of every successive 25 sq. foot plot. However, Prop 19 only allows you TO REMOVE IT FROM YOUR HOME one ounce at a time if you are a recreational user.
Talk about beating a dead horse, you have said this five times already! Don’t you have anything else to say?
For patients this is not the case because Prop. 19 exempts them from the one ounce out of home restriction. As stated above, if you are a patient then you can take out of your house up to eight ounces, or whatever your doctor permits you to have or the needs of your collective.
You have nearly repeated yourself verbatim! On the same page of this letter no less.
Both medical patients and recreational users should note that Section 11300(a) (i) allows you to "share" up to an ounce which tells me that you can furnish as many one ounces to as many friends as you wish, thus if you have a party with 50 people you could give away 50 ounces.
Now there’s an idea: Just give away your time, money, and energy. Do you do a lot of pro-bono work? Are you leading by example? Why don’t you just share with me your money? Why don’t you stop charging people for the services you provide?
As for the argument that the various “Notwithstanding” clauses invalidate the CUA and MMP, I reiterate, that in section 2C (1) where Prop. 19 expressly states which statues are being altered, the CUA and MMP are not listed. Therefore, when you use the word “notwithstanding,” you cannot be referring to statues that have been expressly excluded.
Well, doesn’t that just mean “despite?” Isn’t that the literal meaning of the word? And, aren’t you talking about the laws that are being LIMITED? Considering section 2C (1) says “this act is intended to limit the application and enforcement of state and local laws” wouldn’t the CUA/MMP be listed under the next section which states: “This act is not intended to affect the application or enforcement of the following state laws…” and then it lists a bunch of standing laws that are not to be affected by 19? That section omits 11362.5. If 19 was going to leave these STANDING state laws alone, why aren’t they included in this section?
Claiming there is some doubt as to what “notwithstanding” means or refers to requires at most that we reach back to the purpose of the legislation in order to give it proper meaning. Whatever interpretation you give it, “notwithstanding” cannot be in conflict with Sections 2 B (7 & which exempt patients covered under the CUA and MMP from any actions taken by municipalities to regulate the non-medical use of cannabis.
Again, your whole defense that MMJ patients are going to be left alone is based only off of the wording in regards to “possess and consume” and “bought and sold.” What about cultivation? Taxation? When you talked about cultivation you NEVER MENTIONED A MMJ PATIENT EXEMPTION.
The word “notwithstanding” is used when reversing prior legislation and has traditionally been interpreted by prior case law to be a word employed for the purpose of allowing conduct that had previously been forbidden by other statutes. If the word “notwithstanding” was not used in Prop. 19, municipalities would be able to claim that there is still a prohibition on their participation in the licensing and regulating of this activity.
Well, I am glad you said that! Because couldn’t this section read like this and be accurate?
(DESPITE) any other provision of law (CUA/MMP) it is lawful and shall not be a public offense under California law for any person 21 years of age or older to:
Cultivate, on private property by the owner, lawful occupant, or other lawful resident or guest of the private property owner or lawful occupant, cannabis plants for personal consumption only, in an area of not more than 25 square feet per private residence or, in the absence of any residence, the parcel.
So you are telling me in fact, that 19 CAN be used to limit the CUA/MMP via the new growing area restrictions? Since the CUA/MMP is not listed in the list of laws to be exempted from the reach of 19, then there can be no other conclusion drawn from this! The word “notwithstanding” isn’t the issue, it is the BLATANT OMISSION OF THE CUA/MMP FROM THE LIST OF EXEMPTIONS section 2C (2). Had the CUA/MMP been listed there, then the whole usage of the word “notwithstanding” wouldn’t be an issue, but it’s not. Why?
For example, a law making skipping in front of a school illegal would be overturned by a law which says “notwithstanding other laws, skipping is legal.” If the word “notwithstanding” was not there, then skipping in front of a school would still be illegal even though skipping itself would be legal at any other location.ddddd
So a law granting cultivation without size restrictions could be revoked by a law that has growing area size restrictions? You are not making a very good case… what is your hourly?
The rationale behind this rule emanates or comes from another rule of statutory construction which is that existing laws cannot be repealed by inference and instead must be EXPRESSLY repealed. A court cannot find that a law, such as the CUA or MMP, was changed by "implication." In other words, it cannot repeal a law by ruling that another law implied that it should.
Isn’t that exactly what 19 is doing? Repealing numerous standing laws? Doesn’t the wording “notwithstanding any other law” repeal quite a few laws in regards to cannabis? And given your statutory construction argument, wouldn’t the court be bound to merely TAX and Regulate according to the wording of prop 19? And 19 doesn’t IMPLY anything it flat-out just says, essentially, ‘despite any other law you cannot cultivate an area greater than 25 sq ft.’
Although Sections 2B (7 & gives cities control over the non-medical distribution of cannabis, that in no way allows a court to repeal or even change the CUA and MMP by ruling that it was “implicit” in Prop. 19 that they do so. It is contrary to any rational understanding of statutory construction to infer that since Prop. 19 gives cities control over the distribution of non-medical marijuana, that it also gives cities the right to control the medical distribution of cannabis beyond what the CUA and MMP allows.
What about cultivation? The distribution was never the issue. In fact, you made all of the arguments used in this letter. You are addressing no specific arguments, you merely made some things up, and argued against yourself for the duration of this entire letter. How much did you get paid to write this? Or are you a pro-bono propagandist?
The word “notwithstanding” is simply a legal necessity to repeal the various statutes that prohibit the conduct that prop. 19 now permits.
So can everyone please VOTE YES ON 19.
J. David Nick
So can everyone finally see through the bullshit this guy puts out there?
Sincerely Calling You Out On Your Bullshit,
Damn, its hard to get some love here....
love it! it about time, thanks again The Ruiner.
!-My name is Needforweed and Im a cannaholic.
Do you mean Glen Beck?
Originally Posted by TokinPodPilot
I'm 100% against Prop 19.
Basically it just leaves too many ways for our government to screw us.
This will only help those with large grows, and 19 basically limits that to those willing to pay huge fees.
Just a way for a few individuals to get richer, at the expense of everyone else.
A scam, at best.
By the way, I detest Glen Beck and his ilk.
I think he meant another sycophantic pro-19 poster-boy....
Originally Posted by veggiegardener
My absolute favorite part of that bullshit letter is where this fucker says 'I can easily picture defending someone with 200 lbs.'
Pisses me off to see the Libertarian Party...may have to rethink my orientation...
- Gary E. Johnson, former two term Republican Governor of the state of New Mexico
- Joycelyn Elders, former United States Surgeon General
- George Miller, current Democratic House Representative from California's 7th congressional district
- Barbara Lee, current Democratic House Representative from California's 9th congressional district
- Pete Stark, current Democratic House Representative from California's 13th congressional district
- John Dennis, 2010 Republican Congressional candidate for California's 8th congressional district
- Dan Hamburg, former Democratic House Representative from California's 1st congressional district
- Don Perata, former Democratic President pro tempore of the California State Senate
- Mark Leno, current Democratic member of the California State Senate
- Tom Ammiano, current Democratic member of the California State Assembly
- Jorge Castañeda Gutman, former Secretary of Foreign Affairs of Mexico
- Larry Bedard, former President of the American College of Emergency Physicians
- Tom Bates, current Mayor of Berkeley, California
- James P. Gray, former Superior Court judge of Orange County, California and former Libertarian Party senate candidate
- John A. Russo, current City Attorney of Oakland, California
- Paul Gallegos, current District Attorney of Humboldt County, California
- Jeffrey Schwartz, former Senior District Attorney and Prosecutor of Humboldt County, California
- Terence Hallinan, former District Attorney of San Francisco, California
- Mike Schmier, former District Attorney of Los Angeles, California and California Administrative Law Judge
- Norm Stamper, former Seattle, Washington police chief
- Joseph McNamara, former San Jose, California police chief
- Stephen Downing, former Los Angeles, California police chief
- David Doodridge, former Los Angeles, California narcotics detective
- Ed Rosenthal, cannabis activist and columnist 
- Marc Emery, cannabis activist and former cannabis seed seller
- California NAACP
- Oakland City Council
- Berkeley City Council
- California NORML
- Drug Policy Alliance
- marijuana Policy Project
- American Federation of Teachers
- National Black Police Association
- Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
- ACLU of Northern California
- ACLU of San Diego
- United Food and Commercial Workers Union
- Communications Workers of America, Local 9415
- International Longshore and Warehouse Union, Northern California District Council
- Service Employees International Union of California
- Interfaith Drug Policy Initiative
- Los Angeles County Democratic Party
- San Francisco Democratic Party
- Alameda County Democratic Party
- Monterey County Democratic Party
- Santa Barbara County Democratic Party
- California Young Democrats
- Republican Liberty Caucus
- Green Party of California
- United States Libertarian Party
bump so hopefully more people see this....
That's why my voter registration card had the 'Other' box ticked and "Independent" entered in the blank.
Originally Posted by The Ruiner
Join the true minority! Seriously... I think there's like maybe all of a 100 or so that've done the same. Personally, I think more want to, but get bamboozled by the American Independent Party option. Those buggers are bloody weird.
By lemon13 in forum Newbie Central
Last Post: 09-01-2010, 05:17 PM
By Daukness in forum General Marijuana Growing
Last Post: 07-07-2010, 09:34 PM
By cjishigh in forum Outdoor Growing
Last Post: 04-12-2010, 07:49 PM
By nellyatcha in forum General Marijuana Growing
Last Post: 08-02-2009, 09:24 PM
By DWR in forum Toke N Talk
Last Post: 07-07-2008, 10:55 AM